(16-08-2017 08:28 AM)Grasshopper Wrote: You can infer "purpose" only by assuming that something was designed. To try to go the other way is begging the question.

No, the normal tendency to is to infer design, by inferring purpose. It’s why ToE often faces an uphill battle, often arguing against this very inclination, i.e Dawkins lecture on purpose.

If you observe qualities, that resemble elements of foresight, things that resemble what might be found in a story, aims and directions, elements previously given in the example of inherent purpose, the conclusion would be that’s it designed.

At least that the way people normally reason.

In facts this sort of teleological reasoning is observed children, as early as we can trace it, regardless of whether they’re raised in a religious home or not. They have tendency to assign teleological purpose, to things like pointy rocks, which are their for porcupines to scratch their backs on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(16-08-2017 08:28 AM)Grasshopper Wrote: You can infer "purpose" only by assuming that something was designed. To try to go the other way is begging the question.

No, the normal tendency to is to infer design, by inferring purpose. It’s why ToE often faces an uphill battle, often arguing against this very inclination, i.e Dawkins lecture on purpose.

If you observe qualities, that resemble elements of foresight, things that resemble what might be found in a story, aims and directions, elements previously given in the example of inherent purpose, the conclusion would be that’s it designed.

At least that the way people normally reason.

In facts this sort of teleological reasoning is observed children, as early as we can trace it, regardless of whether they’re raised in a religious home or not. They have tendency to assign teleological purpose, to things like pointy rocks, which are their for porcupines to scratch their backs on.

... and the child would be wrong. Pointy rocks were not designed for porcupines to scratch their backs on. The appearance of design is not necessarily design, and the "argument from design" was refuted long ago. Also, if everything in nature is designed, much of it is poorly designed. If God is an engineer, he's a shitty one. Evolution makes a whole lot more sense.

I’m new to this website and this thread seems like a good place to start, as I agree that atheism is the only rational position, and specifically that theism is not rational.

I’m happy to reconsider this position if any rational and convincing argument can be given for God. Whether it’s the so-called fine-tuning of the universe, or the existence of something from nothing, or the diversity of life on earth or whatever, nothing seems to demonstrate God any more than other rational explanations. In most cases God doesn’t even provide an explanation at all, not even a week one. It amounts to simply saying that it’s magic, period.

(16-08-2017 09:07 AM)Grasshopper Wrote: No, the normal tendency to is to infer design, by inferring purpose. It’s why ToE often faces an uphill battle, often arguing against this very inclination, i.e Dawkins lecture on purpose.

If you observe qualities, that resemble elements of foresight, things that resemble what

That wasn’t my point. It wasn’t about whether or not the child’s conclusion is correct, but about the natural inclination and tendency to draw such conclusions.

The path in which your brain draws a correct conclusion in some instances, and wrong conclusions in other instances is not necessarily a different path.

A child’s brain is product of billions year of evolution configuring how it processes a variety of external stimuli. While it grows and matures as we grow older, we’re not particularly likely to undue the several billion years of work, that govern our processing tendencies in the 20, 30, 40 years you and I have in comparison.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(10-08-2017 04:10 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote: In fact that is not a problem in Quantum Mechanics. There is always a well defined wave function to describe the quantum state of a system. No matter how many elementary particles are there in the system. The more are the particles the more complex is the wave function. But there is always a well defined quantum state for the system regardless of the size.

Errr... No.

An object's Compton wavelength, the scale at which quantum effects become meaningful, is inversely proportional to its mass. Above about 20 micrograms, the Compton wavelength is less than Planck length, the smallest amount of space that can be meaningfully described. Objects massing more than 20 micrograms can never experience quantum effects. This is the reason why any argument invoking quantum explanations for macroscale phenomena may be summarily dismissed.

In principle, you could determine the wave function of an entire human being, however that wave function is incapable of ever existing as more than a mathematical abstraction. Your time would be better spent arguing over whose shadow can bench press the most.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was talking about the quantum state of a system of many microscopic objects not the quantum state of a macroscopic object. The former is always meaningful. The number of particles can be arbitrarily large, and they can be arbitrarily far, there is no limit. The latter, as you described, would converge to classical mechanics. I was referring to many-body quantum mechanics which is usually described using quantum field theory. In fact, many-body situation is usually what is encountered in practical applications.

Quote:This is the reason why any argument invoking quantum explanations for macroscale phenomena may be summarily dismissed.

I think this is a very common misconception about quantum mechanics. This is a Wikipedia page about macroscopic quantum phenomena.

BTW, I agree that Dyson's speculations about consciousness should be ignored, but not because he invokes quantum mechanics. Because it is not clear what he means by "consciousness", he vaguely associates consciousness with free choice and does not make it clear what he means by the term.

My only point was to suggest that any kind of wild speculation about consciousness does not go against established scientific facts. Which shows how unclear and indefinite the notion of consciousness is, I think.

I noticed my point about the "burden of definition" has been misunderstood. So I'd like to express my position again, this time more clear.

This is the claim:
1. A rational agent clearly defines whatever that he is talking about
Therefore,
2. Talking about something that one cannot clearly define, is an irrational act
Also,
3. A rational agent always carries a burden of definition of what he is talking about
Also,
4. A rational agent is silent about the terms that he cannot define

#1 follows from the definition that:
5. the propositions of a rational agent can always be expressed within a finite formal system
and 6. Every symbol is clearly defined in a finite formal system
Therefore proposition #1 is true.

7. The term "God" is undefined in general.
Therefore from #2 we have:
8. Talking about God (not a definite God, but God in general) is irrational

#3 explains my point about "the burden of definition", which I think was misunderstood.

I'm also suggesting that #4 is the only rational position concerning God.